Noted.

Noted.

Arlen Specter’s switch; The Progressive turns 100.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

A SWITCH IN TIME:

Barack Obama

promised to change politics, and on April 28 the oldest Republican senator put an exclamation on the point by changing parties. Of course,

Arlen Specter

‘s changeover was motivated by more than Obama’s “postpartisan” appeal. Specter–a prochoice, pro-civil rights, union-friendly Rockefeller Republican whose vote for the stimulus bill inspired the ire of the right–was all but certain to lose next year’s Pennsylvania primary to a conservative challenger.

The prospect of forced retirement clarifies the mind, and Specter now finds himself “more in line with Democrats.” But which Democrats? If he aligns with mushy centrists, his defection won’t mean much, even if Dems have the sixty votes to avert filibusters. Nowhere is this more evident than with the

Employee Free Choice Act

, which Specter and several other Democrats refuse to back. Praise from union leaders for his move suggests that they think he’ll help them forge a compromise. But if Specter’s switch makes an already compromise-prone Democratic caucus more squishy, then he’ll deserve a primary challenge–no matter what the party leaders have promised him. More encouraging is Specter’s professed belief in “the need for Congress and the courts to reassert themselves in our system of checks and balances.” His recent New York Review of Books article reads as if it was written by

Russ Feingold

. If Specter changes course on EFCA and fights for civil liberties, he might finish his career where he started–as a liberal Democrat–and his switch could be one of the most important developments of Obama’s first 100 days. Let’s hope.   JOHN NICHOLS

WELCOME TO THE CLUB:

The Nation was a mature 43 years old in 1909, when one of its favorite senators launched

La Follette’s Weekly

, a muckraking journal of Midwest radicalism that would eventually become

The Progressive

. The immodest goal of

Robert La Follette

‘s magazine–which was gathering editors, writers and fans to celebrate its 100th birthday May 1-2 in Madison, Wisconsin–has long been to win “back for the people the complete power over government.” Even if that mission remains incomplete, The Progressive has surely done its part: opposing war and empire; fighting for the New Deal; and advocating for women’s suffrage, justice for Native Americans and civil and gay rights.

The Progressive championed the public’s right to know when editor

Erwin Knoll

and writer

Howard Morland

successfully challenged the

Atomic Energy Act

‘s secrecy clauses; The Nation supported it in that struggle. As clouds again gathered over the Constitution during the Bush era, Progressive editor

Matthew Rothschild

defended civil liberties with his meticulous “McCarthyism Watch.” This ongoing crusading is, as our own

Victor Navasky

noted in welcoming The Progressive to the circle of 100-year-old magazines, a boon in an era of declining print fortunes. “That’s because they are a cause as much as a business,” says Navasky.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x